Plant supports have been used by gardeners ranging from the professional to the casual since before recorded time. There truly have been innumerable alternatives devised for providing auxiliary support to a growing plant. These alternatives can range from a simple stake in the ground to an automated, high-tech, controlled environment greenhouse. Despite the plethora of alternatives historically available, the utility or desirability of any specific alternative is always defined by the totality of the circumstances impacting a given user.
In today's consumer society in the U.S., both the hobbyist and the professional alike can have quite unique requirements for a plant support system that differ from their historical predecessors of even a few generations ago. These include ready commercial availability (and all the inherent considerations that go into a commercial product), simplicity and ease of use, durability, broad application and efficient storage. Of course, the industry has been motivated to develop a variety of plant supports to address one or more of these desirable features. Some examples follow.
Booker, U.S. Pat. No. 4,285,163, describes a four-sided, collapsible plant enclosure. The enclosure may have screened sides for growing plants safe from rodents and other intruders. However, the screened sides when practiced with the invention are not removable, nor does the invention have a top closure. Vogel, U.S. Pat. No. 4,073,091, describes another four-sided plant support that is foldable in the flat plane of the sides. Benson, U.S. Pat. No. 5,544,446, describes a plant support similar to Booker and Vogel in that it is foldable in the plane of its side, but provides for a support that may have more than four sides. However, the means for staking the Benson support to the ground requires separate elements, whereas in Booker and Vogel the staking means are integral to the support.
Nahon, U.S. Pat. No. 4,005,548, describes an alternative plant support which employs a plurality of upright rods and cross wires which may be assembled by the end user in order to provide the erected support structure. However, after use, this structure requires substantial disassembly before it can be stored in a compacted configuration. Another support structure assembled by the end user is that of Hilistead, U.S. Pat. No. 5,179,799. However, the Hilistead support differs from the Nahon support in that it is readily dissemble able for storage, but requiresbreaking the support down into its separate component parts. There are still other structures that are neither collapsible nor foldable, but provide a reduced storage space requirement by nesting multiple structures when more than one structure is to be stored. Such supports include those of Lemrick, U.S. Pat. No. 3,299,569, and Glamos, U.S. Pat. No. 5,174,060, and the prior typical cone-shaped tomato cage.
Additionally, there are plant support structures that although they are protective, they are not collapsible or foldable to provide a reduced volume configuration to increase storage efficiency. For example, Gayle, U.S. Pat. No. 4,858,380, describes a plant support having a wire mesh guard structure for completely enclosing a plant, with two different cross-sections and a lid for accessing the enclosed plant.
In view of the above, there is still the need in the field for alternative plant support systems that combine the benefits of having simple, integrated structural components, support structures that are easily erected for use and readily foldable for efficient storage, and which can provide both a protective environment as well as physical support as desired by the user.